TMI Blog

1986 (2) TMI 176

spondents. [Oral Judgment per : I.S. Tiwana, J.]. - The following facts furnish the background of the case : On December 25, 1975, the petitioners in pursuance of a scheme published in the Government of India Gazette dated October 8, 1975, for voluntary disclosure of income and wealth made a disclosure to the Income-tax Commissioner, Patiala, to the effect that they had 113 gold biscuits, each weighing 10 tolas and 20 guineas. On the basis of this disclosure, they paid taxes to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000. Later on 5-1-1976 the petitioners reported theft of this gold to the police at Narwana, district Jind. As a result of the investigation that followed, the police prosecuted 9 persons resulting in their conviction. With the conclusion of the .....

authority. Those orders have undisputably achieved finality and are binding on the parties including the customs authorities. 2. Strange as it my look, the above noted directions of the Court have not been carried out so far neither by the Treasury Officer in whose custody the gold in question is stated to be nor by the custom authorities in investigating the matter any further. This is in spite of the fact that during those years the petitioners made 3 applications (Annexure P. 2, P. 8 and P. 9) either claiming the return of the gold in question or seeking the permission of the Gold Control Administrator to convert the gold-which undoubtedly is primary gold -in the light of the ordinance under which the disclosure had been made i.e. v .....

ioners ; therefore, the same be not handed over to the petitioners. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, I find no merit in the stand taken by the respondents. 4. As has already been indicated, the question with regard to the return of the gold to the petitioners has already been adjudicated and settled by the three Courts including this Court vide orders Annexure P. 1, P. 6 and P. 7. I see no justification either with the Treasury Officer or with the custom authorities not to go by the directions contained in those orders. As a matter of fact, this should have been done long back. Similarly, I do not find any justification with the respondent-authorities not to decide the applications of the petitioners (An .....